iii. Other symbolic reparations 411. The Applicants pray the Court to order other symbolic reparations that it may deem appropriate. 412. The Respondent State prays the Court to reject this request. *** 413. The Court notes that the Applicants have requested for “other symbolic reparations, however, the Court recalling its jurisprudence, notes that a judgment can constitute a sufficient form of reparation.118 414. In the instant case, the Court observes that its judgment, constitutes a sufficient measure of satisfaction and therefore, rejects the prayer for other symbolic reparations. iv. Publication of the judgment 415. The Court recalls that Article 27(1) of the Protocol gives it power to “make appropriate orders to remedy” violations. In the circumstances, the Court reaffirms that it can, by way of reparations, order publication of its decisions where the circumstances of the case so require.119 416. The Court observes that for reasons now firmly established in its practice and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, publication of this Judgment is necessary.120 The Court notes that the alleged violations herein are serious and massive and affect a particular section of the population. Furthermore, the ignorance of some of the members of the society in the Respondent State has been noted, making it imperative for this judgment to be widely circulated. 118 Mtikila v. Tanzania (reparations), § 45 and Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (merits and reparations), supra, § 194. 119 Legal and Human Rights Centre and another v. Tanzania, Judgment, supra, § 180. 120 Idem, § 182; Habyalimana Augustino and Muburu Abdulkarim v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 015/2016, Judgment of 3 September 2024, § 249. 93